Goodbye to All That

Gerlach: To Tim’s point: It’s so frustrating to go back to your district, and you meet with your constituents, and they have just gotten info with someone from, say, Heritage Action or whatever. And you’ll say, “Well, no that’s not accurate,” for whatever reason. And they’ll say, “OH, no, no. You’re wrong.” And you’ll say, “No, they’re wrong. Here’s the bill. Here’s the language.” “No, no, no. That’s not what it is.” They—

Gerlach: They trust that group’s email more than their own elected member of Congress who does this for a living every day and…

Griffin: Is in the meetings!

Gerlach: Is in the meetings! And there’s the language, right in front of them. They will not believe you, they will believe that group. And it’s just so frustrating.

Griffin: I have a great relationship, at least historically, with all different parts of the spectrum in our party back home. But they’ll say, “Why didn’t you vote for this, Why couldn’t you have done this as an alternative. That’s what Heritage Action said.” And I’ll say, “Well, Heritage Action wasn’t in the room when we discussed that alternative. The votes for that alternative did not exist.”

But in any event, this is frustrating because people will say, “I’m frustrated at the process; I’m frustrated at the president” and I say, “OK, take your frustration and multiply it times 100, because this is not something I worry about when I come home from work—this is my work. This is what I leave home for, and sleep on an air mattress in my office for, and shower in the gym for—is so that I can focus on this.” So I try to communicate that I share your frustration. But I do want to move the ball down the field just a little bit. Because I can always find a reason to oppose everything and anything. Right? You can always find something in a sausage that doesn’t look like you want to eat it. That’s where we are with legislation. You can always take the sausage and find something that you oppose.

Bachus: There’s an expression: Vote no and pray yes. And I can tell you when the government shut down, we’re paying everybody. It costs $26 billion—we’re blowing money, and we’re not getting anywhere and our numbers are plunging. But members prayed yes and voted no. And only 86 [Republicans] voted to open it back up, and I was one of ‘em.

Glasser: All three of you.

Griffin: One of the most conservative principles is: You get what you pay for. And whether we’re having a debate or not, American people pay for their government with their taxes. People going on a vacation want their visas. People want this on time, they want that on time—regardless of the debates. So I decided I think the core conservative argument here is we’re charging the American people for their government. And, yes we need to make all sorts of changes. But, at a minimum, we must continue to give them what we’re taking their money for.

***

Glasser: Lightning round: If you could change one thing, now that you’re leaving, about Congress, what would it be?

Griffin: Have my family able to live in Little Rock and in Washington at the same time.I mean literally defy the rules of physics.

Gerlach: Boy, that’s a really tough question. Legislatively, making sure there’s an ongoing regular order not only in the House but the Senate as well, because that’s been the cause of the crisis legislatively we’ve been dealing with over the years to a great extent too—you know, the Senate not doing their budget, not doing the appropriations bills, waiting till a crisis.

And then, politically, doing away with the era of the permanent campaign, which is not going to happen because of free-speech rights and the money that’s in the process, but giving a members a chance just to get settled in their districts and represent their districts. And not constantly be attacked for every little thing for two years straight until the next election cycle—just give them a chance to breathe a little bit and represent the districts.

Bachus: I’ve enjoyed every minute of it. Some of it I wouldn’t have wished on myself, but it’s been good for me. And I have tremendous respect for the institution and for the members. I do wish the American people knew how good and qualified 90 percent of the representatives are. I’d change the districts. Look at the districts—they’re gerrymandered. I mean, every district in the country’s gerrymandered.

Griffin: I want to add, too, that when I sit in Ways and Means Committee luncheons, and I look around and Dave Camp’s our chairman, and Mr. Gerlach’s there. Paul Ryan’s sitting over to my left… I look around and I say, This is a group of quality, intelligent, caring, hard-working people that know what they’re talking about. And I agree with what Spencer said: 90 percent, give or take, maybe even more, of the people that I know in the House of Representatives are decent, hard-working people who are really trying to fix things, really trying to make a difference. And despite what the polls say about the label of Congress, which, by the way, groups people as disparate as Pelosi and me together when you say that, right? But I can tell you, looking around the conference—these are some good people, and if they were all living back in my district, I would hang out with them. I wish the American people could have a window on some of these discussions and how sincere and thoughtful these people are in such stark contrast to “House of Cards,” for example, which I love watching, you know—I watched the whole thing. But I watched that going, this is so far removed from reality, yet a lot of people who are watching that, I would daresay, believe it’s reality. They believe that’s how it really works.